Yale Professor: Tea party members know more science than non-tea partiers.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

A finding in a study on the relationship between science literacy and political ideology surprised the Yale professor behind it: Tea party members know more science than non-tea partiers.

Yale law professor Dan Kahan posted on his blog this week that he analyzed the responses of more than 2,000 American adults recruited for another study and found that, on average, people who leaned liberal were more science literate than those who leaned conservative.

However, those who identified as part of the tea party movement were actually better versed in science than those who didnít, Kahan found. The findings met the conventional threshold of statistical significance, the professor said.

Kahan wrote that not only did the findings surprise him, they embarrassed him.

ďIíve got to confess, though, I found this result surprising. As I pushed the button to run the analysis on my computer, I fully expected Iíd be shown a modest negative correlation between identifying with the Tea Party and science comprehension,Ē Kahan wrote.

ďBut then again, I donít know a single person who identifies with the tea party,Ē he continued. ďAll my impressions come from watching cable tv ó & I donít watch Fox News very often ó and reading the Ďpaperí (New York Times daily, plus a variety of politics-focused Internet sites like Huffington Post and POLITICO). Iím a little embarrassed, but mainly, Iím just glad that I no longer hold this particular mistaken view.Ē

What a shock that he would have that prejudice It's alive and well with the progresives down here. They sneer at conservatives and have a deeply felt belief that they are far superior. To say it's insulting is putting it mildly.

‎" To the world you are just one more person, but to a rescued pet, you are the world."

What a shock that he would have that prejudice It's alive and well with the progresives down here. They sneer at conservatives and have a deeply felt belief that they are far superior. To say it's insulting is putting it mildly.

I don't think that most people equate Tea Partier with Conservative. I think that "conservative" generally brings to mind William F Buckley or Ronald Reagan while "tea partier" is associated with a different and less intellectual sort.

Be that as it may, this man is confessing his surprise rather than 'norming" or "weighting" his results to produce the desired opinion.

I wonder if he is going to change his opinion based on his experience, and if so, how long he'll get to stay in the ivory tower.

Originally Posted by Novaheart

I don't think that most people equate Tea Partier with Conservative. I think that "conservative" generally brings to mind William F Buckley or Ronald Reagan while "tea partier" is associated with a different and less intellectual sort.

Be that as it may, this man is confessing his surprise rather than 'norming" or "weighting" his results to produce the desired opinion.

Yes, but why is it associated with a less intellectual sort (and remember that Ronald Reagan was considered a dunce by the left)? The professor who conducted the study shows the bias, which he gained from constant media reports on the Tea Party, which were relentlessly negative. His opinions were shaped by lies spread by a corrupt, partisan media that created and perpetuates a demonstrably false meme of ignorance, racism and stupidity among conservatives of all stripes, not just Tea Partiers. This is why incompetent, corrupt Democrats get a pass and honorable, capable Republicans cannot get elected. It's why Democrats have no fear of their policies failing, because any failure will be attributed to Republicans or ignored, and why Republicans can no longer have any hope of compromise with intransigent Democrats.

Gleen Beck, baseball caps, motor homes, NASCAR jackets, age, fried snickers bars, tail gate parties, guys who show up at rallies wearing pseudo SWAT attire and weapons. Right or wrong, these things and combinations of these things are associated with being a bit simple.

Gleen Beck, baseball caps, motor homes, NASCAR jackets, age, fried snickers bars, tail gate parties, guys who show up at rallies wearing pseudo SWAT attire and weapons. Right or wrong, these things and combinations of these things are associated with being a bit simple.

In other words, things that the cultural left disdains because they don't do them. OTOH, the things that they associate with their culture, such as MSNBC, trucker caps (worn ironically), hybrids, Obama bumper stickers, overpriced organic produce, white wine parties and guys who show up at Occupy Wall Street wearing Che t-shirts are considered, what, exactly, signs of intelligence?

Originally Posted by Novaheart

Honorable Republicans can't get elected because they insist on pandering to religious nuts who vote for other religious nuts in the primaries and then declare the winners to be RINO.

The internecine warfare within the Republican Party notwithstanding, the fact is that Democrats pander to nuts of every stripe, including environmental whackjobs, feminists who make common cause with Islamists and sexual predators (go back and read Gloria Steinem's defense of Bill Clinton some time if you can overcome your gag reflex), Islamists who make common cause with Nazis, former communists, current communists, corrupt machine politicians, corrupt corporate rent seekers and racial arsonists of every color whose common denominator is hatred of everyone who doesn't look like them, and the media ignores all of it.

Here's where it gets toxic: The Democrats know that they can get away with anything, because the media will never hold them accountable. Obama's intransigence, the failure of Obamacare's rollout, Benghazi... anything that can be ignored is, and anything that can't be is blamed on Republicans. Thus, Obama has no fear of taking the country to the brink of bankruptcy (or over the brink), because no matter what happens, he knows that the media will protect him from the fallout. He doesn't see that he's destroying America, or may not even care that he is. All that he cares about is that he's winning the short term fight. OTOH, the Republicans have no incentive to negotiate with the Democrats, because they will never get a deal, and will be held responsible for any failures. They end up with one faction that believes that they might as well fight and lose than give in and another that knows that there's no point in fighting because they will lose either way. They see the collapse of America and don't know how to arrest it because the terms of the debate are set by the left's media lackeys. This means that future politics are going to be even more divisive, and the schisms will get deeper and wider, and most likely violent, since all civil remedies will be impossible. This is a recipe for societal collapse and civil war.

In other words, things that the cultural left disdains because they don't do them. OTOH, the things that they associate with their culture, such as MSNBC, trucker caps (worn ironically), hybrids, Obama bumper stickers, overpriced organic produce, white wine parties and guys who show up at Occupy Wall Street wearing Che t-shirts are considered, what, exactly, signs of intelligence?

You won't get any argument from me. Ask my mother: I consider everyone my inferior.

In other words, things that the cultural left disdains because they don't do them.

I do find it amusing that the hippies on the left and the hicks on the right and even the militant blacks all seem to defer to men in suits with PhD (real or imagined) after their name as long as they agree with them.